Appropriating Information Technology Artefacts through Trial and Error: The Case of the Tablet.

The concept of appropriation is of paramount importance for the lasting use of an Information Technology (IT) artefact following its initial adoption, and therefore its success. However, quite often, users' original expectations are negatively disconfirmed, and instead of appropriating the IT artefact, they discontinue its use. In this study we examine the use of IT artefacts following negative disconfirmation and use Grounded Theory Method techniques to analyse 136 blogposts, collected between March 2011 - July 2017, to investigate how users appropriate or reject the tablet when technology falls short of users' expectations. Our findings show that users overcome negative disconfirmation through a trial and error process. In doing so, we identify that users appropriate the tablet when the attained benefits significantly outweigh the risks or sacrifices stemming out of its use. We discuss our contribution within the context of the appropriation literature, and highlight that the success of IT lies with the user's success in identifying personal use scenarios within and across diverse contexts of use.

Effect of stimulus type on the eye movements of children.

PURPOSE: The authors investigated whether pictures elicit superior response rates and eye movement dynamics on saccade and pursuit tasks than do dots or spots of light and whether the need for more interesting stimuli is age dependent. METHODS: Using video eye tracking, horizontal eye movements were investigated in children and adults using dots and small colored pictures as stimuli. Saccade data were obtained from 61 people and pursuit data from 53 people, ages 3 to 30 years, with no known ocular, ocular motor, neurologic, or systemic disease. Saccadic stimuli were randomly presented in steps ranging in size from 5° to 30°. Pursuits at four velocities (5°/s, 10°/s, 20°/s, and 30°/s) were tested using step ramp stimuli. RESULTS: Picture targets result in age-dependent improvements in ocular motor responses compared with dots. With the exception of saccadic accuracy, the youngest children are most affected by the type of target. Adults are affected very little. For pictures, saccadic response rates (t((60)) = 4.30, P < 0.001), saccadic peak velocities (t((60)) = 2.24, P = 0.03), saccadic accuracy (t((59)) = 2.34, P = 0.02), and closed-loop pursuit gains (F((3,50)) = 2.86, P = 0.046) are higher. Saccadic error rates (t((60)) = 3.91, P < 0.001) and saccadic latencies (t((59)) = 9.5, P < 0.001) are lower with pictures. CONCLUSIONS: Stimulus characteristics can affect response rates and eye movement dynamics, particularly in young children. To avoid underestimation of eye movement performance in young children, it is important to use meaningful targets. Furthermore, when comparing the ocular motor performance of children across studies one must consider the type of stimuli used.

Junior physician's use of Web 2.0 for information seeking and medical education: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Web 2.0 internet tools and methods have attracted considerable attention as a means to improve health care delivery. Despite evidence demonstrating their use by medical professionals, there is no detailed research describing how Web 2.0 influences physicians' daily clinical practice. Hence this study examines Web 2.0 use by 35 junior physicians in clinical settings to further understand their impact on medical practice. METHOD: Diaries and interviews encompassing 177 days of internet use or 444 search incidents, analyzed via thematic analysis. RESULTS: Results indicate that 53% of internet visits employed user-generated or Web 2.0 content, with Google and Wikipedia used by 80% and 70% of physicians, respectively. Despite awareness of information credibility risks with Web 2.0 content, it has a role in information seeking for both clinical decisions and medical education. This is enabled by the ability to cross check information and the diverse needs for background and non-verified information. CONCLUSION: Web 2.0 use represents a profound departure from previous learning and decision processes which were normally controlled by senior medical staff or medical schools. There is widespread concern with the risk of poor quality information with Web 2.0 use, and the manner in which physicians are using it suggest effective use derives from the mitigating actions by the individual physician. Three alternative policy options are identified to manage this risk and improve efficiency in Web 2.0's use.

Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: tensions and controversies in the field.

BACKGROUND: The term Web 2.0 became popular following the O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in 2004; however, there are difficulties in its application to health and medicine. Principally, the definition published by O'Reilly is criticized for being too amorphous, where other authors claim that Web 2.0 does not really exist. Despite this skepticism, the online community using Web 2.0 tools for health continues to grow, and the term Medicine 2.0 has entered popular nomenclature. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to establish a clear definition for Medicine 2.0 and delineate literature that is specific to the field. In addition, we propose a framework for categorizing the existing Medicine 2.0 literature and identify key research themes, underdeveloped research areas, as well as the underlying tensions or controversies in Medicine 2.0's diverse interest groups. METHODS: In the first phase, we employ a thematic analysis of online definitions, that is, the most important linked papers, websites, or blogs in the Medicine 2.0 community itself. In a second phase, this definition is then applied across a series of academic papers to review Medicine 2.0's core literature base, delineating it from a wider concept of eHealth. RESULTS: The terms Medicine 2.0 and Health 2.0 were found to be very similar and subsume five major salient themes: (1) the participants involved (doctors, patients, etc); (2) its impact on both traditional and collaborative practices in medicine; (3) its ability to provide personalized health care; (4) its ability to promote ongoing medical education; and (5) its associated method- and tool-related issues, such as potential inaccuracy in enduser-generated content. In comparing definitions of Medicine 2.0 to eHealth, key distinctions are made by the collaborative nature of Medicine 2.0 and its emphasis on personalized health care. However, other elements such as health or medical education remain common for both categories. In addition, this emphasis on personalized health care is not a salient theme within the academic literature. Of 2405 papers originally identified as potentially relevant, we found 56 articles that were exclusively focused on Medicine 2.0 as opposed to wider eHealth discussions. Four major tensions or debates between stakeholders were found in this literature, including (1) the lack of clear Medicine 2.0 definitions, (2) tension due to the loss of control over information as perceived by doctors, (3) the safety issues of inaccurate information, and (4) ownership and privacy issues with the growing body of information created by Medicine 2.0. CONCLUSION: This paper is distinguished from previous reviews in that earlier studies mainly introduced specific Medicine 2.0 tools. In addressing the field's definition via empirical online data, it establishes a literature base and delineates key topics for future research into Medicine 2.0, distinct to that of eHealth.